Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Ram Avtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Chairman And Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4474 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Termination - Disciplinary Proceedings - Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 - The court quashed the termination order and the subsequent appellate orders. The court found that the charges against the petitioner were vague, unclear, and self-contradictory, and the inquiry proceedings were biased and violated principles of natural justice. The court directed notional reinstatement and awarded 50% of back-wages and retiral benefits with interest to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the termination order and subsequent appellate orders. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant-cum-Grader and was alleged to have been negligent in the performance of duties, leading to financial loss and disrepute to the Corporation. The petitioner denied the allegations and requested the production of crucial documents, which were not provided despite repeated requests and court orders. The inquiry proceedings were biased, and the charges were found to be vague and self-contradictory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination and appellate orders could not be sustained. The charges against the petitioner were vague, unclear, and self-contradictory. The inquiry proceedings were biased, and the petitioner's requests for crucial documents were not fulfilled. The court directed notional reinstatement and awarded 50% of back-wages and retiral benefits with interest to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the termination and appellate orders, the adequacy of the charges against the petitioner, the bias in the inquiry proceedings, and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges against the petitioner were vague, unclear, and self-contradictory, and the inquiry proceedings were biased and violated principles of natural justice. The failure to provide crucial documents and the consideration of extraneous past records without notice to the petitioner were also noted.
Final Decision: The court quashed the termination and appellate orders, directed notional reinstatement, and awarded 50% of back-wages and retiral benefits with interest to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 03.06.1982 whereby services of the Petitioner were terminated as well as the subsequent order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.05.2013 and order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.08.2016. Mandamus is sought directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioner in service from the date of termination and for consequential relief including arrears of salary and other emoluments.
2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and relevant is that Petitioner was appointed on 26.05.1966 as Technical Assistant-cum-Grader by Respondent No.2 in the pay scale Rs.210-425. Petitioner states that his service record was throughout good from the date of appointment till 15.08.1980, when a memorandum was issued by Sh. N.S. Shilhotri, Senior Assistant Manager, alleging that Respondents' client M/s R.G. Navgoge had deposited 143 bags of cotton seed cakes by warehouse receipt No.081899 on 01.03.1980 and the entire quantity of the stock was delivered on 10.07.1980 but later a complaint was received that the stock was damaged and 18 bags out of 125 were left behind being damaged. The depositor demanded compensation of Rs.2085/- and threatened legal action.
3. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the memorandum on the same day denying the allegations and stating that the depositor took delivery of all bags in full satisfaction and signed the relevant documents. Not satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and Inquiry Officer (`IO') was appointed to look into the charges levelled. Department produced 7 witnesses and 6 documents. Inquiry record indicates that Petitioner had initially given names of 6 witnesses he intended to examine in his defence, however, during the proceedings, an application dated 02.12.1981 was filed stating that Petitioner will not examine defence witnesses as they were not directly concerned with the case. Record also shows that no documents were produced by the Petitioner in his defence.
4. In these circumstances, IO recorded the statements of the witnesses produced by the Respondents and finally rendered the inquiry report on 19.04.1982. Based on the findings of the inquiry report, Respondent No.1 passed the termination order dated 03.06.1982, against which Petitioner filed an appeal on 22.07.1982 before the Chairman of the Respondents.
5. As the appeal was not being decided, Petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4863/1983 and pursuant to order dated 25.10.1983 passed by the High Court, the appeal was decided albeit the same was rejected by the Respondents vide order dated 08.02.1985. Petitioner amended the writ petition to seek quashing of the order dated 08.02.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, however, writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, leaving it open to the Petitioner to file the same in the Court where cause of action had arisen.
6. Petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.642/1994 in this Court on the ground that neither any show cause notice was issued nor a personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, before passing the order. Writ petition was disposed of on 08.03.2013 with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to give personal hearing to the Petitioner and pass a speaking order within four months, in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Disciplinary Authority granted a personal hearing and Petitioner was asked to submit his defence in writing, which he did on 03.05.2013. As per the Petitioner, Disciplinary Authority failed to accede to the request of the Petitioner to call for and look into the crucial documents such as stock register, ledger, delivery order, which would reflect delivery of the entire stock of 143 bags of cotton seed cake etc. and establish that the charges were false. Mechani
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific, clear, and detailed charges in disciplinary proceedings, the prohibition of bias in inquiry proceedings, and the impo....
Disciplinary inquiry vitiated if Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and prosecutor, records adverse witness statements without cross-examination, relies on unfurnished reports, creating r....
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
It is a duty of Inquiry Officer to scan entire evidence in order to arrive at a finding after judging case of all the parties, adhering to the principles of natural justice, otherwise, inquiry is vit....
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
A disciplinary enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the enquiry report must be reasoned and based on evidence.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to procedural fairness and natural justice; no interference absent perversity or bias; facilitation of witness deposition not bias; repeated frivol....
In cases involving the imposition of a major penalty, the establishment must prove charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, and adhere to the principles of natural justice in the domest....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
